Opposing The Asinine Atheists

Main menu

Tag Archives: suffering

Some of the language used in this article is SUBJECTIVE. SUBJECTIVE language reflects what a person believes to be reality and not reality.

Is there pointless suffering? Yes. Now, how do you reconcile that with a good God?

The belief in pointless suffering is necessary to keep people from accepting all suffering in the belief that all suffering is good because whatever God sends is good. However, if suffering is pointless, God is evil. Therefore, suffering cannot be pointless.

So, how do we reconcile these two truths; that is, suffering is pointless and suffering is not pointless? (Note that once we reconcile these two truths, we have reconciled the truths of pointless suffering and divine goodness.)

Truth exists in people. People are more complex than you know. The Bible teaches that people have a mind but it also teaches that each person has multiple, virtual minds; that is, each person, in effect and not really, has multiple, secondary minds. For example, the Bible seems to teach that you have two seats of consciousness – soul and spirit. I Thessalonians 5:23 says:

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, we know that there is only one seat of consciousness. Therefore, one of these, soul or spirit, must be virtual (existing in effect and not really); that is, one of these must be virtual mind. In addition to the Bible, psychiatric science abundantly recognizes the existence of virtual minds (the dissociative continuum). There is much, much, much more proof of the existence of virtual mind but we need to be brief for now.

So, how do multiple, virtual minds explain our contradictory truths suffering is pointless and suffering is not pointless? Well, each truth exists in its own virtual mind. Now, virtual minds are transitory; that is, they have a fixed lifetime. They come and they go. And note that we are not conscious of these virtual minds but we are conscious of the thoughts within them.

Now, a truth is only true in its virtual mind. Once the virtual mind ends, the trueness of the truth within it ends. By this means, cognitve dissonance (mental conflict arising from believing contradictory truths) is avoided.

You might ask, “Since all of this is true, why do I believe the truth of a virtual mind after the virtual mind has passed?” The answer is that you don’t, you merely believe you do.

Finally, having reconciled the truths of pointless suffering and “pointful” suffering, we have reconciled the truths of pointless suffering and divine goodness.

Footnote: Now, one of the truths does not, objectively, cease to be true once its virtual mind has passed. A truth that ends when its virtual mind ends is called a mental truth. This is because it is only true in the mind. A truth that objectively persists after its virtual mind has ended is called an extended truth. This is because it is true both in the mind and in the environment (the “real world”) . In the case of pointless suffering, we are dealing with a mental truth. In the case of “pointful suffering,” we are dealing with an extended truth. “Pointful suffering” is objectively real.

“Is it necessarily rational to be angry with someone who causes human suffering? No. Why not? Would you be angry with a being that sent paralyzing pain to someone who was about to kill a loved one? No. This reveals the real cause of our anger – a belief relating to human suffering, not human suffering itself. The belief is that the human suffering is irrational and/or indicative of some other causal shortcoming. Now, such beliefs are ultimately matters of judgment, not science. Thus, the validity of such beliefs depends on whether the ‘judge,’ the one making the judgment, has a sound faculty to make judgments. That, in turn, is established by a long track record of sound judgments.”– Dr. Michael Bisconti

“People do not get angry over (or experience other emotion because of) pain, though they may believe that is the case. People only get angry over idea related to pain. For example, people may get angry over the idea that pain is unjust or they may get angry over the idea that pain is cruel or they may get angry over the idea that pain is too severe. So, there is not, was not, and cannot be anger over human suffering per se (in itself). However, the mind may, in effect (not actually), merge idea and perception so that it seems that the pain itself is the cause of the anger. Proof of the independence of anger (and other emotion) from pain is found in the experiences, utterances, and writings of masochists, who enjoy their suffering. Additional proof of the independence of anger (and other emotion) from pain is found in the experiences of military personnel, who endure hardships in preparation for military service. Also, there are the hardships of athletic training endured by athletes. These facts destroy the sometimes seemingly irrefutable ‘arguments of suffering’ proffered by atheists. Finally, if a person is suffering severely, they are not seeking to express some motivation (emotion) to prove God is a monster; rather, they are seeking relief from their pain.”– Dr. Michael Bisconti

“The answer to the question of God and suffering may appear to be arbitrary (random) but there is a guiding principle behind all of it – what must be true for God to be a good God and still be a God who sends suffering.”– Dr. Michael Bisconti